It's only touch screen because of its screen size and it has to be to operate efficiently, but with a desktop PC or a laptop I would rather have a keyboard and mouse, touch screen is not needed at all for me.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons LightStar. Touch screens work well on phones/tablets not because of their size, but because they are used as a (held flat) horizontal control surface. The old keyboard/mouse you would rather use, is also used flat on your desk.
Prior to 2008, I taught Cad/Cam at night school. One thing I never got used to, was writing on a chalkboard. As a vertical surface, using a chalkboard is a pain in the ass. If you don't believe me, try this out for yourself with a couple sheets of paper. It takes far less effort to write on a sheet of paper held flat on a table, over writing on a paper sheet held vertical on the wall.
Last year, I made the mistake of buying a Kinect for my Xbox 360. It seemed fun and novel at first. Not long after, everyone in the family went back to using the old gamepad/chatpad controlled games. Why? It takes less effort to hold a game controller flat in your hands over using your TV as a vertical control device with Kinect.
This is why I just don't see (vertical control) touch screens on laptop/desktops ever beating out (horizontal control) keyboard/mice as the preferred control method. Even worse, is that touch screens sell at a premium price point. Awkward to use, and more expensive to boot - doesn't sound like a very thought out marketing plan. Perhaps the folks at Intel/MS need to spend some more time in the classroom. (sorry for the pun)
